Facts:

This case involves Asia World Recruitment Inc. (the petitioner) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), and Philip Medel, Jr. (the private respondent). The dispute revolves around an employment contract between the petitioner and the respondent who was hired as a Security Officer in a diamond mining operation in Cafunfo, Angola. The employment was set for a duration of twelve months starting December 1988, with a salary of US$800 monthly plus a 50% bonus, amounting to US$1,200 total per month. The work conditions specified a six-hour workday, with applicable overtime pay of US$5.00 for hours beyond this limit.

The respondent moved to Angola in December 1988 and soon elevated grievances against management regarding work conditions, which seemed to strain his relationship with them. On March 1, 1989, he received a letter of termination signed by General Manager A.J. Smith, stating dissatisfaction with his performanc

...

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

• Petitioner: Asia World Recruitment Inc., a domestic corporation authorized by the POEA to recruit and deploy Filipino overseas contract workers.
• Respondents:
• National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division.
• Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
• Private respondent Philip Medel, Jr., an employee who entered into an employment contract with petitioner.

Employment Contract and Terms

• Private respondent was employed as a Security Officer for a twelve (12) month period to work in a diamond and gold mine in Cafunfo, Angola.
• Salary and Benefits:
• Basic monthly salary of US$800.00 plus a bonus equaling 50% of the basic salary, totaling US$1,200.00 per month.
• Work schedule of six (6) hours per day with one rest day per week.
• Overtime pay at a rate of US$5.00 per hour for work beyond six (6) hours daily.

Additional Duties and Grievances

• Aside from his primary functions, private respondent was required to perform duties as a Dispatcher and Metallurgy Inspector.
• Private respondent raised several grievances on behalf of his Filipino co-workers, which strained his relationship with management.

Circumstances Surrounding Termination

• On March 10, 1989, private respondent received a termination letter (dated March 1, 1989) signed by General Manager A.J. Smith, citing unsatisfactory performance during a three-month trial period.
• Private respondent was repatriated to the Philippines on March 12, 1989, two days after receiving the notice of termination.
• Petitioner later contended that private respondent was merely a probationary employee; however, evidences indicated that he was hired under a fixed-term contract.

Administrative Proceedings and Decisions

• Private respondent filed a complaint on October 18, 1989, alleging illegal dismissal and other monetary claims (e.g., salary differential, overtime pay, and attorney’s fees).
• The POEA Adjudication Office, on March 12, 1991, found petitioner liable for illegal dismissal and ordered payment for salaries of the unexpired portion of the contract amounting to US$7,200.00.
• On April 1, 1991, both parties elevated their appeals:
• Petitioner appealed the POEA decision seeking its reversal.
• Private respondent sought reverberation through an Urgent Motion for Partial Reconsideration regarding his other monetary claims.
• The NLRC, Second Division, on September 13, 1993, rendered a decision dismissing petitioner’s appeal and granting the reconsideration for claims such as illegal deductions, overtime pay, and salary differential.
• Specific findings included:
• Determination that private respondent’s salary should be computed on the agreed basis and that deductions for vehicle damages were unjustified without proper investigation.
• Evidence (such as the Forecast of Duties and Tour of Duties documents) substantiated claims for overtime pay.
• The NLRC modified the POEA decision to award:
• US$7,200.00 for salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract.
• US$1,680.00 for overtime pay.
• US$1,409.23 as salary differential.
• Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.
• Subsequent motions included:
• Private respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss regarding partial payment rendered by the petitioner.
• Partial satisfaction payments by petitioner resulted in a remaining balance computation of US$741.98.

Underlying Employment and Dismissal Issues

• The employment was for a definite term, thereby providing the employee security of tenure during the contract period.
• Petitioner argued that the dismissal was justified as part of contractual provisions allowing summary dismissal, which was countered by evidences and findings that due process was not observed.
• The NLRC and POEA’s findings emphasized that:
• No proper cause was established.
• Procedural due process requirements, including timely notice and the opportunity to be heard, were violated.
• The decision also included an award of moral damages amounting to P25,000.00 due to the oppressive manner and violation of due process in effecting the dismissal.

Issue:

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by affirming the POEA decision that declared private respondent’s dismissal as illegal with modifications awarding additional monetary claims.

• Did the NLRC err in modifying the POEA decision to allow claims for salary differential, overtime pay, and attorney’s fees?
• Whether proper due process was afforded:
• Was the termination notice sufficient and in compliance with the requirements of notice and the opportunity to be heard?
• Whether the employer’s justification of incompetence was adequately substantiated.

Whether the partial satisfaction of the award through payments by petitioner bars or affects private respondent’s right to claim the remaining balance.

• Can a release or quitclaim be invoked to bar further monetary recovery when substantial satisfaction was rendered?
• Does the doctrine that stipulates that a quitclaim does not always preclude an employee from demanding what is legally due apply here?

The determination on moral damages.

• Whether the manner of dismissal, marked by precipitate repatriation and disregard for due process, qualifies for awarding moral damages.
• The adequacy of the evidence in establishing bad faith or an oppressive abuse of the employer’s right to dismiss.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)